scholarly journals On certain aspects of preventing non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of obligations by suppliers under state contracts for the supply of food for the needs of the penal system of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 234 (11) ◽  
pp. 32-45
Author(s):  
EDWARD S. KARPOV ◽  
◽  
SVETLANA V. KOMISSAROVA ◽  
VITALY V. AVDEEV ◽  
◽  
...  

The article deals with the problem of fulfilling the terms of state contracts for the supply of food for the needs of the penal system of the Russian Federation, associated with the receipt of low-quality products by customers. The subject of the study was the materials of judicial practice, accompanying documents of territorial bodies of the FPS of Russia, Russian civil legislation, scientific literature on the topic under study. The purpose of the work is to reveal and analyze the gaps in the legal regulation of food procurement for the needs of the penal system of the Russian Federation based on the materials of judicial practice. The practical significance of the work lies in identifying the difficulties in planning the public procurement to ensure the activities of the penal system in the event of non-performance or improper performance of obligations by suppliers. The methodological basis of the work was formed by the structural and logical method, methods of analysis, synthesis, comparison, induction. As a result of the work carried out, a comparative table of the terms of settlement of civil disputes between customers and suppliers of low-quality food products is presented, the problems affecting the proper execution of state contracts in the field of food procurement are highlighted, specific recommendations of the terms that can be included in the state contract with the aim of preventing unscrupulous food suppliers from participating in procurement are formulated. Key words: penal system, purchase of goods (works, services), contract system, provision for state needs, unscrupulous supplier, goods of inadequate quality.

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 635-641
Author(s):  
Svetlana V. Zavitova ◽  
Nataliya A. Mel’nikova

Introduction: the article considers problematic issues related to the work of management subjects (managers) and attestation commissions in situations when an employee of the penal system of the Russian Federation is dismissed due to the loss of trust. The aim of this study is to identify gaps in the current legislation on the service that arise when a measure of responsibility such as dismissal due to the loss of trust is applied; another aim consists in formulating proposals for improving legislation in this area. Methods: methodological basis of our study is represented by a set of methods of scientific cognition, among which the main place belongs to formal-logical, system-structural, and comparative-legal methods. Results: the study has shown that there are many problematic issues in the law enforcement practice regarding the dismissal of employees due to the loss of trust. The norms of the law do not clearly distinguish the components of corruption offenses for which an employee is subject to dismissal due to the loss of trust or may be brought to another type of liability. The issue regarding the status of the decision of the attestation commission remains unresolved; its decision is of an advisory nature, but at the same time, it is fundamental for making a decision by the employee’s superior. There is an ongoing discussion on the composition of the attestation commission; and options for the selection of independent experts are proposed. Discussion: dismissal due to the loss of trust is a specific type of disciplinary penalty, and its implementation is carried out by authorized management entities within the framework of disciplinary proceedings. The procedure for making a decision on the dismissal of employees of the penal system due to the loss of trust needs further improvement in its legal and organizational aspects, taking into account modern law enforcement and judicial practice.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-83
Author(s):  
Andrey Fursov

Currently, public hearings are one of the most widespread forms of deliberative municipal democracy in Russia. This high level of demand, combined with critique of legal regulations and the practices for bringing this system to reality – justified, in the meantime, by its development (for example, by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives and the Public Chambers of the Russian Federation) of proposals for the correction of corresponding elements of the legal code – make both the study of Russian experiences in this sphere and comparative studies of legal regulations and practical usage of public hearings in Russia and abroad extremely relevant. This article is an attempt to make a contribution to this field of scientific study. If the appearance of public hearings in Russia as an institution of Russian municipal law is connected with the passing of the Federal Law of 6 October 2003 No.131-FZ, “On the general organisational principles of local government in the Russian Federation,” then in the United States, this institution has existed since the beginning of the 20th century, with mass adoption beginning in the 1960s. In this time, the United States has accumulated significant practical experience in the use of public hearings and their legal formulation. Both countries are large federal states, with their own regional specifics and diversity, the presence of three levels of public authority and different principles of federalism, which cause differences in the legal regulation of municipal public hearings. For this reason, this article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of Russian and American experiences of legal regulation and practical use of public hearings, on the example of several major municipalities – the cities of Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Voronezh and New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. A comparison of laws influencing the public hearing processes in these cities is advisable, given the colossal growth in the role of city centers in the industrial and post-industrial eras. Cities in particular are the primary centers for economic growth, the spread of innovations, progressive public policy and the living environment for the majority of both Russian and American citizens. The cities under research are one of the largest municipalities in the two countries by population, and on such a scale, the problem of involving residents in solving local issues is especially acute. In this context, improving traditional institutions of public participation is a timely challenge for the legislator, and the experiences of these cities are worth describing. The unique Russian context for legal regulations of public hearings involves the combination of overarching federal law and specific municipal decrees that regulate the hearing process. There are usually two municipal acts regulating public hearings on general issues of the city district (charter, budget, etc.) and separately on urban planning. In the United States, the primary regulation of public hearings is assigned to the state and municipality level, with a whole series of corresponding laws and statutes; meanwhile, methodological recommendations play a specific role in the organisation of hearings, which are issued by the state department of a given state. It is proposed that regulating the corresponding relationships at the federal subject level will permit a combination of the best practices of legal administration with local nuances, thereby reinforcing the guarantee of the realization of civil rights to self-government. There are other features in the process of organizing and conducting public hearings in the United States, which, as shown in the article, can be perceived by Russian lawmakers as well in order to create an updated construct of public discussions at the local level.


2021 ◽  
pp. 55-62
Author(s):  
I. S. Polyakova

The objective of this research is to consider some controversial issues of the development of public-and-private partnership (and concession agreements as its most common form) in Russia. Some complaints made by Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation to some infrastructure projects are reviewed. The author studied dynamics of private investments into infrastructure projects in the conditions of imperfect legal regulation. The assessment of the validity of the position of Federal Antimonopoly Service is given. It is predicted whether the legislative collisions will prevent the growth of private investments into infrastructure. Recommendations on the development of the mechanism of public-and-private partnership with the observance of antimonopoly regulation, as well as recommendation on the improvement of the legislation in this area are developed. The results of the research can be used by both private participants of public-and-private partnership and the federal, regional and municipal authorities, and also by legislators working on the improvement of the legislative regulation in this area.


Author(s):  
Irina Damm ◽  
Aleksey Tarbagaev ◽  
Evgenii Akunchenko

A prohibition for persons holding government (municipal) positions, for government (municipal) employees, and some other employees of the public sphere who are public officials to receive remuneration (gifts) is aimed at preventing bribery (Art. 290, 291, 291.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and could be viewed as a measure of anti-corruption criminological security. However, the existing collisions of civil, administrative and criminal law norms that regulate this prohibition lead to an ongoing discussion in research publications and complexities in practice. The goal of this research is to study the conditions and identify the problems of the legal regulation of receiving remuneration (gifts) in connection with the performance of official duties that prevent the implementation of anti-corruption criminological security. The authors use the legal theory of security measures to analyze the provisions of Clause 3, Part 1, Art. 575 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Clause 6, Part 1, Art. 17 of the Federal Law «About the Public Civil Service in the Russian Federation», examine the doctrinal approaches to defining the priority of enforcing the above-mentioned norms, study the significant features of the category «ordinary gift» and conduct its evaluation from the standpoint of differentiating between gifts and bribes, also in connection with the criteria of the insignificance of the corruption deed. The empirical basis of the study is the decisions of courts of general jurisdiction. The authors also used their experience of working in Commissions on the observance of professional behavior and the resolution of conflicts of interests at different levels. The conducted research allowed the authors to come to the following fundamental conclusions: 1) the special security rule under Clause 6, Part 1, Art. 17 of the Federal Law «About the Public Civil Service in the Russian Federation», which sets a full prohibition for government employees to receive remuneration (gifts) in connection with the performance of official duties, contradicts Clause 3, Part 1, Art. 575 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the existing legal-linguistic vagueness of categories in Art. 575 of the CC of the RF leads to problems in law enforcement and makes a negative impact on the anti-corruption mentality of people); 2) as the concepts «gift» and «bribe» do not logically intersect, the development of additional normative legal criteria for their delineation seems to be unpromising and will lead to a new wave of scholastic and practical disagreements; 3) the introduction of a uniform and blanket ban on receiving remuneration (gifts) in the public sphere by eliminating Clause 3, Part 1, Art. 575 of the CC of the RF seems to be an effective measure of preventing bribery, and its application is justified until Russian society develops sustainable anti-corruption mentality.


2021 ◽  
pp. 19-21
Author(s):  
Н.Д. Эриашвили ◽  
Г.М. Сарбаев ◽  
В.И. Федулов

В представленной статье рассмотрены проблемы коллодирующих привязок в международном частном праве и особенности их правовой регламентации в законодательстве Российской Федерации. Автором проанализированы особенности нормативного закрепления данного типа привязок в системе международных договоров, а также механизм имплементации этих норм в национальном законодательстве различных государств. На основе сложившейся практики применения коллодирующих привязок национальными органами государственной власти обоснована необходимость учета публичных интересов государства в данных правоотношениях. The present article examines the problems of collodizing links in private international law and the peculiarities of their legal regulation in the legislation of the Russian Federation. The author analyzed the peculiarities of this type of binding in the system of international treaties, as well as the mechanism for implementing these norms in the national legislation of various states. On the basis of the established practice of applying collodial links by national authorities, the need to take into account the public interests of the State in these legal relations is justified.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-315
Author(s):  
D.Yu. VORONIN

The paper presents a research of the new legal regulation for such an institute in relation to a regional and equal court, as the referral of a case received in accordance with part 4 of Article 39 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to a court of general jurisdiction, which is in jurisdiction to hear a case as it is assigned by law. The absence of procedural legal regulation of this action, which is, in author’s opinion, has an obvious procedural nature, and researched practice general jurisdiction courts demonstrate the uncertainty in implementation of the considered reform. The author analyzes the new procedural institution on the basis of his own vision of a number of procedural norms, as well as scholar works and historical experience. In particular, the author reasoning that the courts are to issue special rulings on the referral of cases received from arbitration to the courts of general jurisdiction. Moreover, the author considers the mechanism for adopting such a judicial act. The article presents a wide range of practical examples of the implementation of considered provision, as well as the difference in the approaches of the appellate courts to assess these implementation practice. In conclusion, the article presents the proposals for further improvement of the regulation of considered issue. Most likely such an improvement will be impossible without the universal approach established by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Such improvements should result in uniform judicial practice, as well as further developments of procedural legislation.


2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Вячеслав Воронин ◽  
Vyacheslav Voronin

Part 3 of article 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation refers to the common criteria of individualization of punishment the nature and degree of public danger of committed crime in each criminal case. The purpose of this article is to analyze the legal practice of this provision, as well as the construction of clarification on the issue of taking into consideration the public danger, which will be useful for the judiciary. For this purpose the author supposes to solve following problems: analysis of dogmatic ideas about the nature and degree of public danger; search for factors that courts consider in determining public danger in judicial practice; analysis of the survey data of judges from different regions of the country. As a result the author concludes that the nature of public danger depends on the object of the offense and cannot influence on individualization of punishment, because it was considered by the legislator when constructing the corresponding article of the Special Part and therefore should be excluded from Part 3 of art. 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Degree of public danger when individualizing is determined subject to the objective and subjective elements of a crime. The author proposed to make recommendations on considering into account degree of public danger in the judgment 22.12.2015 No. 58 adopted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On practice of criminal sentencing by courts of the Russian Federation”.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-115
Author(s):  
Vladimir V. Melnikov ◽  
◽  
Ilya N. Karelin ◽  

The paper provides the rationale for using the public contractual system of the Russian Federation as a mechanism of a proactive economic policy. A number of works are analyzed that consider expenditure stimulation through a public contractual system as the main regulatory tool, for instance, in building national innovative systems, advancing research and technology, modeling the structure of the economy as well as solving social problems. An empirical analysis of the role of the Russian contractual system is given in view of its impact upon development of the regional economies in 2012–2019. Regular significant relations between the scope of financing public procurement within the contractual system of the Russian Federation and adequate own funds in the regional budgets are confirmed. The trends in elasticity coefficients characterizing correlations between the scope of financing of public and municipal procurement within the Russian public contractual system and particular tax groups in consolidated budgets of the subjects of the Russian Federation in 2012–2019 indicate economic appropriateness of increased procurement costs in terms of simultaneously providing own funds to the budgets. A positive influence of public and municipal procurement upon the level of employment and innovative activity of entities is shown, verifying, therefore, the potential of the Russian contractual system to support social and innovative policy, which is consistent with international evaluations. Conclusions are reached on the expediency of employing the budget and contractual system cumulatively as a proactive mechanism of economic policy to achieve efficient economic orders.


Russian judge ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 27-31
Author(s):  
Olga O. Nebratenko ◽  

The article is devoted to the study of legal doctrines in the activities of the national body of constitutional justice. In legal science, judicial practice, and state-legal reality, the term “doctrine” in various combinations has become one of the most widely used and ambiguous. At present, the attitude to the legal doctrine is changing, which in a short time has gone from an unused regulator of legal relations in the Russian legal system to an optional one, giving way only to the dominant source (form) of law — a normative legal act. References to doctrines in the final acts of the constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, as well as their direct formulation and use, are a special subject of research activity, which determines the practical significance of the proposed article.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document